Abstract:BackgroundPrevious evidence points to a causal link between playing action video games and enhanced cognition and perception. However, benefits of playing other video games are under-investigated. We examined whether playing non-action games also improves cognition. Hence, we compared transfer effects of an action and other non-action types that required different cognitive demands.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe instructed 5 groups of non-gamer participants to play one game each on a mobile device (iPhone/iP… Show more
“…Training studies, in which nongamers are recruited and randomly assigned to train on action video games or a control game, are typically used in this literature to avoid self-selection biases that might be at play in real-world AVGP and NVGP groups. Notably, although Boot et al (2008) did not find a training effect on VSTM after 21.5 h of training, a more recent study suggests that 20 h of action video game play is sufficient to improve VSTM, as evidenced by increased change detection performance relative to a control group (Oei & Patterson, 2013). Although the present study cannot attest to the causal effect of action video game play on VSTM, these mixed findings from training studies warrant further investigation into the relationship between action video game play and VSTM performance.…”
Visual short-term memory (VSTM) is critical for acquiring visual knowledge and shows marked individual variability. Previous work has illustrated a VSTM advantage among action video game players (Boot et al. Acta Psychologica 129:387-398, 2008). A growing body of literature has suggested that action video game playing can bolster visual cognitive abilities in a domain-general manner, including abilities related to visual attention and the speed of processing, providing some potential bases for this VSTM advantage. In the present study, we investigated the VSTM advantage among video game players and assessed whether enhanced processing speed can account for this advantage. Experiment 1, using simple colored stimuli, revealed that action video game players demonstrate a similar VSTM advantage over nongamers, regardless of whether they are given limited or ample time to encode items into memory. Experiment 2, using complex shapes as the stimuli to increase the processing demands of the task, replicated this VSTM advantage, irrespective of encoding duration. These findings are inconsistent with a speed-of-processing account of this advantage. An alternative, attentional account, grounded in the existing literature on the visuocognitive consequences of video game play, is discussed.
“…Training studies, in which nongamers are recruited and randomly assigned to train on action video games or a control game, are typically used in this literature to avoid self-selection biases that might be at play in real-world AVGP and NVGP groups. Notably, although Boot et al (2008) did not find a training effect on VSTM after 21.5 h of training, a more recent study suggests that 20 h of action video game play is sufficient to improve VSTM, as evidenced by increased change detection performance relative to a control group (Oei & Patterson, 2013). Although the present study cannot attest to the causal effect of action video game play on VSTM, these mixed findings from training studies warrant further investigation into the relationship between action video game play and VSTM performance.…”
Visual short-term memory (VSTM) is critical for acquiring visual knowledge and shows marked individual variability. Previous work has illustrated a VSTM advantage among action video game players (Boot et al. Acta Psychologica 129:387-398, 2008). A growing body of literature has suggested that action video game playing can bolster visual cognitive abilities in a domain-general manner, including abilities related to visual attention and the speed of processing, providing some potential bases for this VSTM advantage. In the present study, we investigated the VSTM advantage among video game players and assessed whether enhanced processing speed can account for this advantage. Experiment 1, using simple colored stimuli, revealed that action video game players demonstrate a similar VSTM advantage over nongamers, regardless of whether they are given limited or ample time to encode items into memory. Experiment 2, using complex shapes as the stimuli to increase the processing demands of the task, replicated this VSTM advantage, irrespective of encoding duration. These findings are inconsistent with a speed-of-processing account of this advantage. An alternative, attentional account, grounded in the existing literature on the visuocognitive consequences of video game play, is discussed.
“…A training with AVG can produce significant increases in AB performance compared with those obtainable with a NAVG training ( [97,127], but see [128]). …”
Section: Visual Temporal Attention In Dyslexia and Action Video Gamesmentioning
Impaired linguistic-phonological processing is the most accepted explanation of developmental dyslexia (DD). However, growing literature shows that DD is the result of the combination of several neurocognitive causes. Visual attention and magnocellular-dorsal (MD) pathway deficits are now considered causes of DD. Interestingly, a large portion of literature showed that action video games (AVG) are able to improve attentional and perceptual skills in typical readers. Consequently, employing AVG trainings in individuals with DD could improve attention and perception, resulting in better reading skills. The aim of our review is to show the benefits of the AVG training on DD through the changes in the neurocognitive functions at the basis of learning to read. Since visual attentional and MD dysfunctions can be diagnosed in infancy, our review paves the way for possible early prevention programs that could use AVG training.
“…Although numerous studies show apparent transfer effects to measures of general cognitive abilities (Chein & Morrison, 2010;Oei & Patterson, 2013), many other studies fail to yield positive results (e.g., Rode, Robson, Purviance, Geary, & Mayr, 2014;Sprenger et al, 2013). The lack of consensus across individual studies is striking and raises many questions about the robustness of the effect as well as how moderator variables may determine the boundary conditions under which training reliably leads to improvements in untrained general cognitive abilities.…”
A recent meta-analysis by Au et al. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 366-377, (2015) reviewed the n-back training paradigm for working memory (WM) and evaluated whether (when aggregating across existing studies) there was evidence that gains obtained for training tasks transferred to gains in fluid intelligence (Gf). Their results revealed an overall effect size of g = 0.24 for the effect of n-back training on Gf. We reexamine the data through a Bayesian lens, to evaluate the relative strength of the evidence for the alternative versus null hypotheses, contingent on the type of control condition used. We find that studies using a noncontact (passive) control group strongly favor the alternative hypothesis that training leads to transfer but that studies using active-control groups show modest evidence in favor of the null. We discuss these findings in the context of placebo effects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citationsâcitations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.